Controversial opinions about Bond films

1495496498500501707

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    NicNac wrote: »
    I did not tell you to get up, Bazza.

    Story of my life old chum.

    *sighs*
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited January 2019 Posts: 7,582
    barryt007 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I did not tell you to get up, Bazza.

    Story of my life old chum.

    *sighs*

    Wait wait...how about this.

    " I have not had a woman prisoner in a very long time!"

    Now that sounds nothing like " Ere, caam down wack! Havena 'ad a bit o' skirt in f****** ages! In fact not since the 'Pool won the European cup, like"

  • Posts: 19,339
    NicNac wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I did not tell you to get up, Bazza.

    Story of my life old chum.

    *sighs*

    Wait wait...how about this.

    " I have not had a woman prisoner in a very long time!"

    Now that sounds nothing like " Ere, caam down wack! Havena 'ad a bit o' skirt in f****** ages! In fact not since the 'Pool won the European cup, like"

    Spot on ,couldn't have put it better myself !!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited January 2019 Posts: 3,996
    barryt007 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    He was in a UK soap at the time based in Liverpool,Brookside,and he was crap in that as well.

    Of all the actors out there,why the hell did they cast this plank over others ?!
    Sometimes I wonder about EON's casting staff,i really do.

    The Bond films have always had excellent dubbing.

    This is one instance that would have benefited.

    Who knows, perhaps one day we'll get a special edition of Daylights with the awful accent rectified...

    Exactly !

    This character was screaming out loud to be dubbed !!

    To be fair he does attempt a sort of Russian accent but his scouse accent just can't be hidden....

    It really shows in the line "The Colonel does not like to hear screaming at night.."
  • zb007zb007 UK
    Posts: 87
    bondjames wrote: »
    zb007 wrote: »
    Tracy wrote: »
    "TLD jailer can't even be arsed and just plays him as a Scouser. Who does he think he is - Sean Connery?"

    I was watching TLD over the weekend and when that scene came on i did think could they not of dubbed the actor or something
    He's hilarious! Unintentionally funny. I quite like that entire sequence as a result.

    Yeah it is quite amusing i must admit in an Unintentional way
  • Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    He was in a UK soap at the time based in Liverpool,Brookside,and he was crap in that as well.

    Of all the actors out there,why the hell did they cast this plank over others ?!
    Sometimes I wonder about EON's casting staff,i really do.

    The Bond films have always had excellent dubbing.

    This is one instance that would have benefited.

    Who knows, perhaps one day we'll get a special edition of Daylights with the awful accent rectified...

    Exactly !

    This character was screaming out loud to be dubbed !!

    To be fair he does attempt a sort of Russian accent but his scouse accent just can't be hidden....

    It really shows in the line "The Colonel does not like to hear screaming at night.."

    I wish I could get a role opposite the latest James Bond actor for being able to 'attempt' an accent !
  • Posts: 54
    1. Spectre isn’t remotely as bad as its reputation. Disjointed and clearly creatively compromised, yes, but I find enough to enjoy for it to sit comfortably in the middle of my series rankings.

    2. Moonraker is better than The Spy Who Loved Me on every level - especially in regards to the main villain. Drax is one of my favorite Bond villains, and Stromberg is one of the weakest.

    3. Goldfinger is the weakest of the ‘60s run. The first half is great, but the second doesn’t feel very Bond-like and I always feel like switching it off as soon as Bond arrives at Goldfinger’s stables.

    4. Roger Moore is wonderful in A View to a Kill, advanced age aside, and it might be his best performance as Bond. He seems to take the proceedings little more seriously than usual.

    5. License to Kill gets way better as it progresses, while The Living Daylights gets way worse.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Geno wrote: »
    1. Spectre isn’t remotely as bad as its reputation. Disjointed and clearly creatively compromised, yes, but I find enough to enjoy for it to sit comfortably in the middle of my series rankings.

    2. Moonraker is better than The Spy Who Loved Me on every level - especially in regards to the main villain. Drax is one of my favorite Bond villains, and Stromberg is one of the weakest.

    3. Goldfinger is the weakest of the ‘60s run. The first half is great, but the second doesn’t feel very Bond-like and I always feel like switching it off as soon as Bond arrives at Goldfinger’s stables.

    4. Roger Moore is wonderful in A View to a Kill, advanced age aside, and it might be his best performance as Bond. He seems to take the proceedings little more seriously than usual.

    5. License to Kill gets way better as it progresses, while The Living Daylights gets way worse.


    Interesting points. I agree on 1 and 3, and see where you are coming from on the other points. LTK is great all the way, from start to finish though! ;)
  • Posts: 15,114
    I agree on 1 as well. For 2, I agree about Drax, but not so much the rest.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Moonraker better than Spy? That is controversial. I couldn't disagree, well, Moore
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 19,339
    Geno wrote: »
    1. Spectre isn’t remotely as bad as its reputation. Disjointed and clearly creatively compromised, yes, but I find enough to enjoy for it to sit comfortably in the middle of my series rankings.

    2. Moonraker is better than The Spy Who Loved Me on every level - especially in regards to the main villain. Drax is one of my favorite Bond villains, and Stromberg is one of the weakest.

    3. Goldfinger is the weakest of the ‘60s run. The first half is great, but the second doesn’t feel very Bond-like and I always feel like switching it off as soon as Bond arrives at Goldfinger’s stables.

    4. Roger Moore is wonderful in A View to a Kill, advanced age aside, and it might be his best performance as Bond. He seems to take the proceedings little more seriously than usual.

    5. License to Kill gets way better as it progresses, while The Living Daylights gets way worse.

    I agree on points 3 and 5...and possibly 4.

    Well said !
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Geno wrote: »
    1. Spectre isn’t remotely as bad as its reputation. Disjointed and clearly creatively compromised, yes, but I find enough to enjoy for it to sit comfortably in the middle of my series rankings.
    I find a few things here and there to enjoy, but I personally think it deserves its reputation.
    Geno wrote: »
    2. Moonraker is better than The Spy Who Loved Me on every level - especially in regards to the main villain. Drax is one of my favorite Bond villains, and Stromberg is one of the weakest.
    Can't agree here I'm afraid, although I can understand the comments about Drax vs. Stromberg. For me, Jurgens has always appeared more menacing. Drax, despite some fantastic lines and a terrific deadpan performance by Lonsdale, comes across less threatening to me.
    Geno wrote: »
    3. Goldfinger is the weakest of the ‘60s run. The first half is great, but the second doesn’t feel very Bond-like and I always feel like switching it off as soon as Bond arrives at Goldfinger’s stables.
    I can sympathize with this view.
    Geno wrote: »
    4. Roger Moore is wonderful in A View to a Kill, advanced age aside, and it might be his best performance as Bond. He seems to take the proceedings little more seriously than usual.
    I agree actually. He gives a very good performance, and a far more serious one than in OP. For me, it's the St. John Smythe disguise which spoils things, because he's that character for quite some time and it accentuates his age (particularly when he makes the moves on Stacey). I subconsciously have to remind myself that this is Moore as Smythe, and not Moore as Bond.
    Geno wrote: »
    5. License to Kill gets way better as it progresses, while The Living Daylights gets way worse.
    I agree here as well.

    Nice list of controversial points for this thread btw.
  • Posts: 2,917
    Goldfinger revisionism is very puzzling. I don't see how it could be considered the weakest of the 60s run when it has fewer longeurs than TB, less bloat than YOLT, more action than FRWL, and is less primitive than DN and has more iconic moments than OHMSS. Out of all the 60s Bonds, it has the best roller-coaster structure of ups and downs and surprises. The public thought similarly, since GF has remained the favorite in cultural memory for decades afterward, and EON agreed too, since it made most of the following Bond films conform to Goldfinger's template.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Revelator wrote: »
    Goldfinger revisionism is very puzzling. I don't see how it could be considered the weakest of the 60s run when it has fewer longeurs than TB, less bloat than YOLT, more action than FRWL, and is less primitive than DN and has more iconic moments than OHMSS. Out of all the 60s Bonds, it has the best roller-coaster structure of ups and downs and surprises. The public thought similarly, since GF has remained the favorite in cultural memory for decades afterward, and EON agreed too, since it made most of the following Bond films conform to Goldfinger's template.

    Completely agree with you @Revelator it will always be top of my Bond film rankings.

    A lot of members on here get bored once the action moves to Kentucky it seems. For me, Bond as a (resourceful) prisoner is just as cool as Bond in action. His conversation with Goldfinger regarding 'Operation Grandslam' is a great scene beautifully played.

    Personally i don't think you can touch the first three. DN, FRWL and GF.
  • Posts: 2,917
    A lot of members on here get bored once the action moves to Kentucky it seems. For me, Bond as a (resourceful) prisoner is just as cool as Bond in action.

    Agreed! There's lots of fun in seeing a captive Bond repeatedly try to foil Goldfinger's plot and continually running into major obstacles. And imagine how suspenseful this must have been for first-time viewers at the time.
    Personally i don't think you can touch the first three. DN, FRWL and GF.

    They are the rock upon which the series stands.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Revelator wrote: »
    A lot of members on here get bored once the action moves to Kentucky it seems. For me, Bond as a (resourceful) prisoner is just as cool as Bond in action.

    Agreed! There's lots of fun in seeing a captive Bond repeatedly try to foil Goldfinger's plot and continually running into major obstacles. And imagine how suspenseful this must have been for first-time viewers at the time.
    Personally i don't think you can touch the first three. DN, FRWL and GF.

    They are the rock upon which the series stands.

    You and @LeonardPine are speaking my language. I honestly can’t see why it’s been popular amongst a few to knock it down a few pegs. Each to his/her own. But like you, just watching Connery in this film was a joy. There’s plenty of “action”, in Kentucky, whether it’s Bond’s escape from prison, sleuthing, discovering what OPERATION GRANDSLAM is all about, his verbal tussle with Goldfinger, his physical tussle with Pussy.

    More than enough to keep me engaged.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Revelator wrote: »
    A lot of members on here get bored once the action moves to Kentucky it seems. For me, Bond as a (resourceful) prisoner is just as cool as Bond in action.

    Agreed! There's lots of fun in seeing a captive Bond repeatedly try to foil Goldfinger's plot and continually running into major obstacles. And imagine how suspenseful this must have been for first-time viewers at the time.
    Personally i don't think you can touch the first three. DN, FRWL and GF.

    They are the rock upon which the series stands.

    Exactly. Follow the blueprint of these 3 films and you can't go far wrong.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    Revelator wrote: »
    A lot of members on here get bored once the action moves to Kentucky it seems. For me, Bond as a (resourceful) prisoner is just as cool as Bond in action.

    Agreed! There's lots of fun in seeing a captive Bond repeatedly try to foil Goldfinger's plot and continually running into major obstacles. And imagine how suspenseful this must have been for first-time viewers at the time.
    Personally i don't think you can touch the first three. DN, FRWL and GF.

    They are the rock upon which the series stands.

    Exactly. Follow the blueprint of these 3 films and you can't go far wrong.

    The same blueprints of the books are Casino Royale, Moonraker and From Russia With Love, in my opinion.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Is it wrong, though, to not bow at the alter of GF? Since I was a young fan all I've heard was how it was the pinnacle of the series and I just cannot agree. Despite watching it countless times over the years to try and see if it changes my view, it just never goes up in my rankings. Sometimes it feels as if I'm excluded from some exclusive group to not agree.

    I will put Goldfinger himself up at the top among the very best villains, Oddjob among the best henchmen (I have Grant at the very top), and the laser table scene may be the most suspenseful moment in the series with masterful dialogue. I am also one of the defenders against the claim Bond does nothing to alter the outcome as he clearly does.

    Despite those, there are numerous things in the film that make it less than the sum of its parts.

    I'd also argue the point above that someone thinks there's more action in GF than in FRWL. GF seems to have the least action of any Bond film.
  • Posts: 2,917
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I'd also argue the point above that someone thinks there's more action in GF than in FRWL. GF seems to have the least action of any Bond film.

    Not how I'd describe a film that features Bond blowing up a drug complex, two fight scenes with electrocutions, a lengthy car chase, the aerial gassing of an army base, an assault on Fort Knox and army counterattack, a fight scene aboard a plane followed by a plane crash, etc. FRWL is a great film but it doesn't spread its action out as evenly as GF--the helicopter and boat chases feel like they were inserted because not enough stuff had blown up yet.
  • Posts: 12,466
    DN is the one with the least action. GF has a fair amount - more than DN and FRWL I’d argue.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    New and shocking controversial opinion: After reading Some Kind of Hero, I feel bad about criticizing Purvis and Wade. It sounds like EON wanted the rights to Colonel Sun around the time that they joined and couldn't get them. That's probably why P, W and EON keep sneaking in CS references into all the movies of theirs. It also sounds like Martin Campbell tried to get them fired on Casino Royale more than once.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Revelator wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I'd also argue the point above that someone thinks there's more action in GF than in FRWL. GF seems to have the least action of any Bond film.

    Not how I'd describe a film that features Bond blowing up a drug complex, two fight scenes with electrocutions, a lengthy car chase, the aerial gassing of an army base, an assault on Fort Knox and army counterattack, a fight scene aboard a plane followed by a plane crash, etc. FRWL is a great film but it doesn't spread its action out as evenly as GF--the helicopter and boat chases feel like they were inserted because not enough stuff had blown up yet.
    Depends on what you want out of action scenes and none stand out for me, although I admit the explosion of the drug complex is one of the best as the first time I taped it off TV it made the picture stutter. Sorry, I just can't rate scenes of planes spraying gas and soldiers falling over before it strikes to be that exciting.

    Those fights are all so brief and I don't count electrocutions as part of that. The fight with Grant alone was worth the price of admission in FRWL. Sure, the helicopter and boat chases were inserted but I find both more exciting one after the other than I do anything in GF.




  • Posts: 7,507
    The latter part of the film from Kentucky onwards is boring, plane and simple! The plot is a clumsy mess, and the pacing goes to a halt. I can live with seeing Bond in captivity. (I can even live with the plot revolving around Bond raping Pussy on to the good side). Those are not the major issues. The problem is that it is badly constructed and loses its tension. It is a shame, as the first half of the film up until the lazer scene is pure gold!

    And don't think I will change my mind simply because you mention it was succesfull...
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 2,917
    jobo wrote: »
    The latter part of the film from Kentucky onwards is boring, plane and simple!

    You mean "plain and simple," but even if your spelling was correct your idea would still be wrong.
    The plot is a clumsy mess, and the pacing goes to a halt.

    The plot is straightforward: Bond is held prisoner and has to find a way to alert the world to Goldfinger's plans, but every time he tries he fails, leaving the viewer wondering how our hero will triumph. Suspense and pace build each time Bond makes an attempt; they mount further when Goldfinger actually makes it into Fort Knox and cuffs Bond to the bomb. From then on you have one of the greatest climaxes of the series.
    And don't think I will change my mind simply because you mention it was successful...

    Luckily the film's stature is not threatened by the contrarian tastes of a few Bond fans on the internet who can't understand why Goldfinger is the most famous, most referenced, and most influential film in the Bond series.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Revelator wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    The latter part of the film from Kentucky onwards is boring, plane and simple!

    You mean "plain and simple," but even if your spelling was correct your idea would still be wrong.
    The plot is a clumsy mess, and the pacing goes to a halt.

    The plot is straightforward: Bond is held prisoner and has to find a way to alert the world to Goldfinger's plans, but every time he tries he fails, leaving the viewer wondering how our hero will triumph. Suspense and pace build each time Bond makes an attempt; they mount further when Goldfinger actually makes it into Fort Knox and cuffs Bond to the bomb. From then on you have one of the greatest climaxes of the series.
    And don't think I will change my mind simply because you mention it was successful...

    Luckily the film's stature is not threatened by the contrarian tastes of a few Bond fans on the internet who can't understand why Goldfinger is the most famous, most referenced, and most influential film in the Bond series.

    Exactly. The plot, which is tight and straightforward actually improves on Fleming's novel. In having Goldfinger 'ruin' the gold supply instead of stealing it the plan becomes even more ingenious and fiendish.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I agree that the film is better than the novel,but it still sits at #16 in my rankings atm.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Yes, I indeed spelled that out clumsily (I am often writing in a hurry). Just to make it clear: My point was not that the plot is "plain and simple", therefore "boring". What I a meant is that it is "plain and simply" "boring"! And of course I know this is my personal opinion and not an objective truth. But that should be obvious whoever is writing. I am not gonna resort to splashing an 'IMHO' into every sentence I am writing to not offend anyone...

    Now to the actual matter: It is indeed true that the plot tries to build tension. Wether it actually succeeds is again a matter of subjective opinion. For me it fails. Massively.

    Is it really a "plain and simple" plot? I am not so sure... Maybe that is what I wish it would be. Let us go through it:

    We are to believe that Pussy is the hero allerting the authorities to Goldfinger's plans, right? Now, what is the "plain and simple", logical way to react in that case? I have a feeling it is not to let him go through with the plan, wilingly inhaling toxic sleeping gass (taking a massive gamble she is telling the truth and risking your life in the process), and wait until Goldfinger has installed the bomb inside the vault before you act...

    The whole solution to the problem to "how does Bond manage to allert the authorities" is so ridiculous and childish that you expect to find it in a Donald Duck cartoon or in a children's tale (if it wasn't for the fact that a rape scene is involved...). People say it improves on the novel. Well, in the novel it at least makes sense how Bond manages to send the information to the athourities, and it doesn't revolve on a cheap, lazy last minute solution from the script writers. Considering the flack Skyfall for taking nonsensical short cuts with its plot, "The undisputed greatest ever Bond film" is certainly not much better...
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I have to agree with a couple of the posters, re Goldfinger.

    It has its fair share of iconic moments, a couple of wonderful scenes and an all time great villain. But somehow, I still find it a little plodding. I think the parts are greater than the sum.

    Not knocking anyone elses opinion I know I am in the minority and most Bond fans revere it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Revelator wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    The latter part of the film from Kentucky onwards is boring, plane and simple!

    You mean "plain and simple," but even if your spelling was correct your idea would still be wrong.
    The plot is a clumsy mess, and the pacing goes to a halt.

    The plot is straightforward: Bond is held prisoner and has to find a way to alert the world to Goldfinger's plans, but every time he tries he fails, leaving the viewer wondering how our hero will triumph. Suspense and pace build each time Bond makes an attempt; they mount further when Goldfinger actually makes it into Fort Knox and cuffs Bond to the bomb. From then on you have one of the greatest climaxes of the series.
    And don't think I will change my mind simply because you mention it was successful...

    Luckily the film's stature is not threatened by the contrarian tastes of a few Bond fans on the internet who can't understand why Goldfinger is the most famous, most referenced, and most influential film in the Bond series.

    Exactly. The plot, which is tight and straightforward actually improves on Fleming's novel. In having Goldfinger 'ruin' the gold supply instead of stealing it the plan becomes even more ingenious and fiendish.

    Neither of the two plots make sense, but I love them both regardless.
Sign In or Register to comment.